Delhi District Court
Mrs. Urmila Singh vs M/S Ivory Printers on 21 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF DHEERAJ MOR: ACJcumCCJcum
ARC (SOUTHWEST): DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI.
EP01/12
CNR No. DLSW030001772012
Mrs. Urmila Singh
W/o Sh. V.P.Singh
R/o R33, Inderpuri,
New Delhi. ...................Petitioner
vs.
1. M/s Ivory Printers
Through its Proprietor,
Sh. N.K.Rajpal,
R33, Inderpuri, New Delhi110012.
2. Sh. N.K.Rajpal,
Proprietor M/s Ivory Printers,
S/o Sh. M.L.Rajpal,
R/o EC14, Inderpuri,
New Delhi110012. .....................Respondents
Date of Institution : 09.01.12
Date of reserving order : 21.04.18
Date of Judgment : 21.04.18
JUDGMENT:
1. By virtue of this judgment, I shall dispose off this petition for Eviction of Tenant under Section 14 (1)(e) r/w section 25B and third schedule of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short DRC Act, 1958).
2. Briefly stated, the facts as averred in this petition are that the petitioner is the absolute owner of property bearing no.R33, Inderpuri, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the suit property), which was purchased by her on 17.02.2005. It is averred that a shop Page no.1 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12and a varandah on the ground floor of the suit property (hereinafter referred to as tenanted premises) were originally let out by its previous landlord to respondents @ Rs. 242/ per month excluding electricity and other charges. Respondent no.1 is the proprietorship concern and respondent no.2 is its sole proprietor. It is averred that the respondents were not using the tenanted premises since last about 1518 years and the same was locked since then. It is averred that after its purchase, the fact regarding transfer of ownership of the suit property was intimated to the respondents and consequently, the respondents started paying rent of the tenanted premises to her.
3. The petitioner has averred that the tenanted premises is bonafidely required for herself and for her family members including husband and daughters. It is averred that her husband has retired from his job and her daughters also need accommodation for expansion of their business. She has averred that one of her daughters is running a school in the suit property and she needs the tenanted premises for expansion of her school. It is further averred that her husband and daughters, being medically unfit, cannot work anywhere else and for their livelihood, they bonafidely require the tenanted premises. She has further averred that the respondents have paid rent only upto October, 2011. A legal notice dated 24.11.2011 was sent to the respondents for termination of the tenancy and for the demand of eviction of the tenanted premises. However, the same was not replied. Hence, the present eviction petition has been filed against the respondents for seeking eviction of the tenanted premises forming part of the suit property on the ground of bonafide requirement as enshrined in Section 14 (1)(e) Page no.2 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/124. In response to this petition, an application for leave to defend was filed by the respondents. Vide order dated 02.05.2015, the said application for leave to defend was allowed and the respondents were directed to file written statement. Accordingly, written statement was filed by respondent no.2 on behalf of both the respondents. The written statement suffers from verbosity and it contains many immaterial contentions, which are irrelevant for the decision of this case. Still, all the said contentions are being reflected in precise, herein. It is contended that petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as there is no landlordtenant relationship between them. He has refuted the claim of the petitioner regarding her bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises. He has even denied that he is in arrears of rent. He has contended that M/s Loyal Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.(in short M/s LTC Pvt. Ltd.) is the landlord of the tenanted premises and he has deposited its rent in the court for the month of December, 2011 to February, 2012 in a petition DR no. 9/12. He has contended that initially Mrs. Amrit Kaur Dhir was the landlord of the tenanted premises and she inducted him as a tenant in the tenanted premises @ Rs.200/ per month in the year 1974. Subsequently, on 28.01.1988, the suit property including the tenanted premises was sold by Mrs. Amrit Kaur Dhir to M/s LTC Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, from 1989 to year 2000, the said company instituted three separate suits against them for eviction of the tenanted premises. However, all the said three suits were dismissed.
5. In the written statement, he has also raised the doubts about the genuineness and bonafide of sale transaction between the Page no.3 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12said company and the petitioner. It is asserted that the petitioner is the wife of Sh. V.P.Singh, who is one of the directors of the said company. It is further contended that the said sale transaction was manufactured with an ulterior motive to create a ground for eviction of the tenanted premises. The major part of the written statement is devoted to challenge the veracity of the said sale transaction in order to manifest that the said sale transaction is malafide, collusive and a sham transaction. While disputing the validity of the said sale transaction, the respondents have raised several aspects ranging from non payment of sale consideration to financial irregularities in the accounts of the said company.
6. He has conceded that in year 2005, he had received a letter dated 17.02.2005 from the petitioner, whereby it was intimated that the suit property was purchased by the petitioner from M/s LTC Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and he was asked to pay rent for the tenanted premises to the petitioner instead of M/s LTC Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, he started regularly tendering rent of the tenanted premises to the petitioner believing the genuineness of the said sale transaction. It is further contended that after institution of the present petition, the malafide intention of the petitioner was revealed. It is contended that the total area of the suit property is 1800 sq. feet and the area of the tenanted shop forming part of the suit property is only 120 sq. feet. It is, therefore, contended that the area of the suit property under the occupancy of the petitioner is sufficient to fulfill all her needs. It is further contended that daughters of the petitioner are not competent or trained to carry out any business and therefore, they themselves are not in position to run any business activities Page no.4 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12satisfactorily. He has contended that the petitioner, after her retirement from MCD school, joined as a partner with her daughter Ms. Chhavi Smita in running a play School under the name and style of M/s Silver Oaks, which is being run in the suit property. He admitted that Ms. Chhavi Smita is financially and otherwise dependent upon the petitioner for running her day to day activities in the School. He has contended that petitioner is receiving handsome pension after her retirement from MCD School and she alongwith her said daughter is residing on the ground floor of C118, Inderpuri, New Delhi.
7. He has further contended that the petitioner, in a partnership with her other daughter Ms. Chhaya Smita, is running a boutique by the name and style "Mod Designer Boutique" in the suit property. He has further contended that Ms. Chhaya Smita is also financially and otherwise dependent upon the petitioner, who is also residing with the petitioner in the same residential accommodation i.e C118, Inderpuri, New Delhi. He has contended that the petitioner has concealed the aforesaid facts regarding her partnership with her daughters in running the said school and boutique. It is contended that petitioner is a share holder in M/s LTC Enterprises Pvt Ltd. and M/s Pearl Seeds Ltd., which are the companies run by the family members of the petitioner. He has contended that the petitioner has not disclosed as to how the tenanted premises is proposed/ projected to be used by her after its vacation. He has disputed the veracity of the site plan annexed with the petition and he filed a site plan claiming to contain the true and factual status at the spot. He has further contended that there is an office of M/s LTC Enterprises, Page no.5 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12play school namely 'Silver Oaks', 'Mod Designer Boutique', Office of Pearl Seeds Ltd. and a vacant shop in the suit property. He has contended that the details of the said school and boutique including staff strength, pupils in the school and the daily footfall of the customers in the boutique is not mentioned in the petition. He has contended that the said vacant shop can be utilized by the petitioner for her alleged bonafide requirement. He has contended that the petitioner has not disclosed about the presence of the said companies and the vacant shop in the suit property.
8. He has denied that the tenanted shop was not being used by him for the last 15 years. In order to buttress his said contention, he has stated that all the correspondence with M/s LTC Enterprises Pvt Ltd. were being carried out by him from the address of the tenanted premises. He has contended that he has voluntarily closed his printing business and now he is continuing an advertising business in the tenanted premises. With these contentions, he has sought dismissal of the present petition.
9. The replication to the written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner. She has denied the contentions of the respondents and she has reaffirmed the contents of her petition. She has contended that she lawfully and bonafidely purchased the suit property for lawful consideration. She has asserted that after satisfying himself about the change of title of the suit property, the respondent started paying rent to her. However, later, he stopped paying rent and with an ulterior motive raised an unfounded and frivolous issue regarding her title. Additionally, she has averred that she has two differently able twin daughters and one of them namely Page no.6 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12Ms. Chhavi Smita is running a play school in the suit property for her livelihood. She has further averred that the accommodation available to her for running a school is insufficient. Further, the other twin daughter namely Ms. Chhaya Smita is also dependent upon her, who is running a boutique in a portion of the suit property. It is averred that the space available to her is also insufficient. She has contended that her property no.C118, Inderpuri, New Delhi is a residential property. She has further contended that she does not have any other commercial accommodation/property for fulfilling the needs of her twin differently able daughters for expansion of their aforementioned respective businesses. She has placed on record a site plan reflecting the proposed mode of utilization of the tenanted premises after the same is vacated by the respondents.
10. Thereafter, matter proceeded for petitioner evidence. The petitioner examined three witnesses in her evidence. Petitioner herself appeared as PW1 and she has tendered her affidavit for evidence as Ex.PW1/A. She has reiterated the material contents of her petition and replication. Therefore, they are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition. Additionally, she has testified that the tenanted premises is proposed to be used as a room for the Principal of the said Play School in the suit property and the existing/ present room for the Principal would be converted into an additional classroom for the students of the said school. She has placed on record the following documents:
a).Photocopy of sale deed dated 02.02.2005 of the suit property executed by M/s LTC Enterprises P. Ltd. in favour of the petitioner Smt. Urmila Singh. The same is Ex. PW1/1 (OSR);
Page no.7 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12b).A letter dated 17.02.2005 regarding intimation of transfer of suit property sent by the petitioner to the respondent. The same is Ex.PW1/2;
c).UPC receipt dated 17.02.2005 is Ex. PW1/3;
d).Photocopy of rent receipt dated 20.11.11 is Ex. PW1/4 (OSR);
e).Legal notice dated 24.11.2011 through Sh. K.K.Arora, Advocate is Ex. PW1/4 (OSR);
f).Postal receipt dated 10.12.2011 and AD card dated 10.12.2011 are Ex. PW1/6 (colly.);
g).AD card dated 10.01.2012 is Ex. PW1/7 ;
h).Site plan is Ex.PW1/8;
i).Photocopies of medical reports of Sh. V.P.Singh, husband of the petitioner/PW1 is Marked as Mark A (colly.)(eight pages);
j).Photocopies of medical reports of Ms. Chhaya Smitha, daughter of the petitioner/PW1 is Marked as Mark B (colly.)(eight pages);
k).Photocopies of medical reports of Ms. Chavi Smitha, daughter of the petitioner/PW1 is Marked as Mark C (colly.)(eight pages);
l).Photocopies of two electricity bills both dated 18.09.97 are Ex.PW1/12 (OSR) (colly.);
m).Photocopies of two electricity bills both dated 28.12.2006 are Ex. PW1/13 (OSR) (colly.);
n).Photocopy of disconnection notice dated 31.03.1992 are Ex. PW1/14 (OSR);
o). Photocopy of sanction letter dated 21.02.1977 of property no. C 118, Inder Puri, Delhi is Ex. PW1/24 (OSR) (objected to the mode of proof);
p). Photocopy of sanction plan.(objected to the mode of proof) is Ex.
Page no.8 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12PW1/25 (OSR);
q).Photograph dated 23.11.2011 and photograph dated 08.05.2015 Ex.PW1/26 (colly.)(objected to the mode of proof).
r). Letter dated 02.08.14 is Ex.PW1/27 (objected to the mode of proof);
s).Gazette notification dated 02.08.2014 is Ex. PW1/28;
t).Site plan of the suit property reflecting its existing/ present position is Ex. PW1/29. (objected to the mode of proof);
u).Site plan of the suit property showing its proposed use after vacation of the tenanted premises is Ex.PW1/30. (objected to the mode of proof);
10.1. She was cross examined by ld. Counsel for the respondent. In her cross examination, she admitted that she was a teacher in Delhi Administration School and after her retirement in June, 2004 she is receiving pension. She has testified that she does not know whether her husband and her son in law Rakesh Kumar Gupta are Directors in LTC Pvt. Ltd. Company. She could not disclose whether her daughters namely Chhaya Smita and Chhavi Smita also became directors in the said company. She accepted the suggestion of respondent that she purchased the suit property from LTC Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. She could not reveal the exact amount of sale consideration for the purchase of the suit property. However, she testified that it was around Rs. 11 lakhs. She did not remember the mode of payment of sale consideration. She has testified that her both daughters are doing business in the suit property. She has deposed that her daughter Chhaya Smita is running a boutique in the name of 'Mod Designer' and her other daughter Chhavi Smita is Page no.9 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12running a play school in the name of 'Silver Oak' in the suit property. She admitted that the said school and boutique were already running at the time she purchased the suit property. She could not tell the strength of the staff and children in the said school as she stated that it was being run by her daughter. She has deposed that in addition to the said school and boutique, there is no other occupant in the suit property. She admitted the suggestion of the respondent that C 118, Inderpuri, New Delhi is a residential property.
11. PW2 is Ms. Chaya Smita and she is daughter of the petitioner. She has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. She has deposed that she is unmarried and she is residing with her parents. She has testified that she is suffering from serious incurable health disease and the tenanted premises is required by her to make an effort to be financially independent. She has testified that she is running a boutique in the suit property and on account of paucity of space, it has become difficult to operate the same and manage its staff. She has deposed that she is getting assistance from her old parents in running of the said boutique. She has further testified that her differently able sister Chhavi Smita is running a play school in the suit property and she is also facing problem in its running due to shortage of space. She has relied upon the following documents:
a).Copy of Election ID card and Aadhar card is Ex.PW2/1 (colly., OSR);
b).Copy of Diploma from Vidya Training Institute is Ex.PW2/2 (OSR);
c).Copy of Diploma from I.E.C school of Art and Fashion is Ex.PW2/3 (OSR);
Page no.10 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12d).Copy of graduation degree from University of Delhi is Ex.PW2/4 (OSR); and
e).Copy of Sankara Netralya medical report dated 13.08.2002, Glaucoma imaging centre, dated 15.05.2006 and dated 02.02.2011, RR eye Care and Laser Institute dated 12.05.2009 are ExPW2/5 (colly, running into 4 pages) (OSR).
11.1. In her cross examination she has deposed that she is running a boutique shop in the suit property since last 1012 years. She has testified that she is not an income tax assesse. She has deposed that there are two employees in her boutique. The annual return of LTC Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. was shown to her and she admitted her signatures on it. The said annual return is Ex.PW2/D1. She has deposed that now, only she and her sister are occupying the suit property in addition to the respondent. She has deposed that she never expanded her boutique. She admitted that her parents are looking after day to day expenses of her sister and her.
12. PW3 is Ms. Chavi Smita and she is the second daughter of the petitioner. She has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. She has deposed on the similar lines as that of PW2. She has also relied upon the following documents.
a).Copy of Election ID card and Aadhar card is Ex.PW3/1 (colly, OSR);
b).Copy of Election ID card and Aadhar card of my husband Sh. Rahul Tomar is Ex.PW3/2 (colly, two pages, OSR);
c).Copy of Diploma in Nutrition & dietetics from institute of Health Care Administration, Madras is Ex.PW3/3 (OSR);
d).Copy of certificate in Business and Industrial administration from Page no.11 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12LCCI is Ex.PW3/4(OSR);
e).Copy of graduation degree from University of Delhi is Ex.PW3/5(OSR); and
f).Copy of OPD receipt dated 05.08.1983, OPD receipt dated 17.03.83, OPD receipt dated 18.03.82, prescription from Glaucoma imaging centre dated 06.04.2006, prescription from RR eye care and laser Institute dated 12.05.2009, prescription from Orthopedic Trauma Centre dated 11.01.2008 and dated 18.02.2009, prescription from Glaucoma imaging centre dated 02.02.2011 are ExPW3/6 (colly, running into 8 pages) (OSR).
12.1. She was cross examined by ld. Counsel for the respondent. In her cross examination, she has testified that she is running a play school in the suit property since the year 2000. She has deposed that the arrangements for running of her school was done by her parents. She has deposed that there are 40 students in her play school. She volunteered that the numbers of student and employee keeps varying from time to time. She has testified that she does not have any PAN card and she has never filed her income tax returns. She has testified that she never expanded her school since its inception. She has testified that she is married and she is residing with her parents. Thereafter, petitioner evidence was closed.
13. In respondent evidence, three witnesses were examined.
14. RW1 Sh. N.K.Rajpal is respondent no.2. He has proved and placed on record his affidavit for evidence Ex.RW1/A in his examination in chief. He has reiterated the contents of his written statement in his said affidavit. He has relied upon the following Page no.12 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12documents:
a). The judgment dated 31.01.1996 in suit no. 120/91 is Mark A (3 pages). (This document is mentioned as an Ex. RW1/1 in affidavit. However, it was deexhibited);
b). The judgment dated 02.03.2000 in suit no. 32/89 is Mark B (5 pages). (This document is mentioned as an Ex. RW1/2 in affidavit. However, it was deexhibited);
c). Site plan is Ex. RW1/4;
d). The sale deed dated 28.01.1988 is Mark C (7 pages). (This document is mentioned as an Ex. RW1/5 in affidavit. However, it was deexhibited);
e). The annual return of LTC Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. is already Ex. PW2/D1. (The said document as an Ex.RW1/6 in the affidavit. However, it was deexhibited);
f). The balance sheet of LTC Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. is already Ex. PW3/D1. (The said document as an Ex.RW1/7 in the affidavit. However, it was deexhibited);
g). The letter dated 17.02.2005 addressed to Ivory Printers is Ex. RW1/8 (OSR);
h). The letter dated 07.10.2006 written by N.K. Rajpal is Mark D (The document mentioned as an Ex.RW1/9 in the affidavit. However, it was deexhibited for being photocopy);
i). The documents Ex. RW1/10 and RW1/11 stand deexhibited as the same are not filed by the respondent;
j). The memorandum of association of LTC Enterprises is Mark E (4 pages). (The document mentioned as an Ex.RW1/12 in the affidavit. However, it was deexhibited for being photocopy);
Page no.13 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12k). The police complaint of the year 1995 is Ex. RW1/13;
l). Legal notice dated 20.10.2000 is Ex. RW1/14(OSR)(2 pages);
m). The reply dated 04.11.2000 by Sh. Sudhanshu Batra, Advocate is Marked as Mark F.(The document mentioned as an Ex.RW1/15 and Ex. RW1/16 in the affidavit. However, it was deexhibited for being photocopy);
n). A copy of the rent receipt book is Ex. RW1/17(OSR)(2 pages);
o). The letter date 30.10.2003 is Ex. RW 1/18 (OSR);
p). The form 32 of Pearl Seed Ltd. is Mark G (colly). (The document mentioned as an Ex.RW1/19 in the affidavit. However, it was de exhibited for being photocopy);
q). The form 32 of LTC Enterprises is Mark H (colly). (The document mentioned as an Ex.RW1/20 in the affidavit. However, it was de exhibited for being photocopy);
r). The complaint dated 26.02.2012 is Ex. RW1/21 (OSR);
s). The complaint dated 29.03.2012 is Ex. RW1/22 (OSR);
t). The complaint dated 21.04.2012 is Ex. RW1/23 (OSR); u). The TDS certificate no. 969424 is Mark I. (The document mentioned as an Ex.RW1/28 in the affidavit. However, it was de exhibited for being photocopy); and
v). The TDS certificate no. 2709475 is Mark J. (The document mentioned as an Ex.RW1/29 in the affidavit. However, it was de exhibited for being photocopy).
The documents exhibited as Ex. RW1/24, Ex. RW1/25, Ex. RW1/26 and Ex. RW1/27 in the affidavit Ex.RW1/A were not filed by the witness 14.1. In his cross examination, he has deposed that he has Page no.14 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12paid rent of Rs. 293/ to the petitioner vide a money order dated 24.01.2018. He has deposed that the tenant premises does not have any electricity connection since 1989. He has deposed that his electricity connection was disconnected on account of non payment of bills and the same could not be paid as his bills were stolen. He has testified that the same could not be restored as the requisite NOC was declined by the landlord. He has testified that he did not file any suit for restoration of the electricity connection. He has deposed that he did not write any letter to the landlord for seeking NOC for the electricity connection. Again said, he requested in the month of January,2012. However, he admitted that he has not annexed the said letter. He admitted that the sale deed of the suit property is in the name of the petitioner. However, he volunteered that financial consideration in the said sale deed is inadequate. He has deposed that he does not have any employee in his proprietorship concern of printing and advertisement, which he is running from the tenanted premises. He conceded that he has not annexed any bill to depict that the tenanted premises is being used for printing and advertising purpose. He has deposed that he got the tenanted premises white washed and repaired in the month of NovemberDecember,2017. However, he did not take any permission for the same. He volunteered that he took permission from the petitioner vide letter dated 07.10.2006 to white wash and repair the premises. He has testified that he did not raise any bill for the reimbursement of the amount spent on the white wash and repair. He has further deposed that since year 2006, he has been getting his tenanted premises white washed every year at his own Page no.15 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12cost. He has deposed that LTC is the landlord of the tenanted premises and he is paying rent to the petitioner for being part of LTC. He has denied the suggestion that the tenanted premises is vacant and he admitted that he has not placed on record any photographs showing its inside view. He admitted that 'Mod Designer Boutique' and 'Silver Oak school' are running in the suit property. He admitted that LTC executed a sale deed of the suit property in favour of the petitioner in the year 2005 and after receipt of intimation in that regard, he started paying rent to the petitioner. He has admitted that in his written statement he has stated that daughters of the petitioner are financially and otherwise dependent upon the petitioner.
15. RW2 Sh. R.K.Saini is Sr. Technical Assistant in the Office of Registrar of Companies, 4th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi. He has placed on record the certified copies of documents of incorporation of LTC Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Pearl Seeds Ltd. including their Memorandum and Articles of Association, Form nos. 32 and their balance sheets of annual returns.
16. RW3 Sh. Anoop Singh is Record Keeper in the Office of the Sub RegistrarII, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. He has placed on record the copy of the registered sale deed dated 02.03.1988 of the suit property executed by Smt. Amrit Kaur in favour of M/s LTC Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The same is ExRW3/1 (running into 07 pages) (OSR). Thereafter, respondent evidence was closed.
17. I have heard detailed arguments of both the parties and carefully perused the material available on record.
18. In order to obtain an eviction order under section 14 (1) Page no.16 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner must establish the following ingredients :
i).The premises was let out for residential purposes;
ii).there is a landlordtenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent;
iii).the tenanted premises is required bonafidely by the petitioner for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him; and
iv).the petitioner does not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation.
19. Pertinently, Section 14 (1)(e) DRC Act, 1958 is only in respect of premises let out for residential purposes. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment titled as Satyawati Sharma vs. Union of India, AIR 2008 SC 3148 has enlarged the ambit of the said provision and thereby extended the said provision to the premises which are let out for commercial purposes. In the instant case, the tenanted premises was admittedly let out for the commercial purposes. Therefore, in the light of the said judgment, the said provision is applicable in the present case. Hence, the first ingredient of the said provision stands satisfied.
20. In respect of second ingredient, petitioner has claimed that she is the owner/landlady of the suit property including tenanted premises. PW1 has proved the sale deed dated 02.02.2005 of the suit property executed by M/s LTC Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the petitioner. The same is Ex.PW1/1. The respondent has not disputed about the veracity of the said sale deed. In his cross examination, respondent/RW1 has admitted the suggestion of the petitioner that sale deed of the suit property is in the name of the Page no.17 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12petitioner. However, respondent has asserted that the same is a sham transaction without lawful consideration involving several financial irregularities. In order to substantiate the said assertions, the respondent has placed on record several documents including memorandum of association of M/s LTC Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. i.e the Predecessor in interest/ vendor of the suit property. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the sale consideration of the suit property was not paid and it was under valued. He has contended that the family members of the petitioner are Director in M/s LTC Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. He has contended that M/s LTC Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. had unsuccessfully instituted three eviction petitions against the respondent prior to its sale to the petitioner. Therefore, the said transaction was concocted for creating a ground of bonafide requirement for eviction. With these submissions, he has contended that the said sale transaction is carried out with an ulterior motive. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the petitioner has refuted the said contentions. He has argued that there is no legal bar for an absolute owner to transfer his / its property. He has contended that the respondent can not inhibit/ restrict the right of an absolute owner of an immovable property to its disposal / alienation. Further, in accordance with Section 14 (6) DRC Act, 1958 the present eviction petition has been filed after elapse of five years from the purchase of the suit property on 02.02.2005. With these submissions, he has argued that the respondent can not question the title of the suit property with the petitioner.
21. In the instant case, the inadequacy of the sale consideration or financial irregularities conducted by the parties at Page no.18 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12the time of the execution of the sale deed is neither in issue nor it is relevant. The court has to determine whether the petitioner and the respondent have a landlord tenant relationship or not. The said sale deed Ex.PW1/1 is not disputed by the respondent. It conveys title of the suit property in the name of the petitioner. Further, respondent/ RW1, in his cross examination, has admitted that he had received an intimation from the petitioner in the year 2005 regarding the change of the ownership of the suit property and thereafter, he started paying rent to the petitioner w.e.f February, 2005 onwards. Landlord is defined U/s 2 (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and as per said provision, it means a person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person. Thus, as per statute, an owner and landlord are not synonymous. Rather, any person who is not an absolute owner can also be landlord of the premises provided he satisfies the aforementioned requirement of the statute.
22. Thus, to succeed in a petition under section 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, the landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership. He is required to show that he has better rights in the suit property than that of the tenant. In Sushil Kanta Chakravarty vs. Rajeshwar Kumar, 79 (1999) DLT 210, it has been held as under:
"in case of a petition U/s 14 (1)(e) of the Act, in order to show the ownership, it is not necessary to show absolute ownership. The legislature used the word "owner"in section 14 (1)(e) not in the sense of absolute owner,but it was used in contra distinction with a Page no.19 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.EP no.01/12
landlord as defined in the Act who is not an owner but who owns the property for the benefit of another person and merely collects the rent. If the person collected the rent for himself and for his own benefit and the property is his own even in the loose sense and no one is claiming rights over the property, then he is considered as owner for the purpose of Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. Even possessory right over the property of a person have been given recognition as ownership visa vis tenant under Delhi Rent Control Act."
23. In the instant petition, the petitioner has not only proved that she is an absolute owner of the suit property vide sale deed Ex.PW1/1 but the same is even admitted by the respondent. Besides, respondent has also admitted that he was paying rent to the petitioner. Further, the respondent is not claiming any right in the tenanted premises except for being tenant in it. The respondent has raised objections regarding the ownership of the suit property with the petitioner in a perfunctory manner just for the sake of opposing the present petition. Moreover, the respondent is estopped from denying the landlord rights of the petitioner once he has admitted the petitioner to be landlord through his conduct of paying rent to her. In Capt. Praveen Davar (Retd.) & Another vs. Harvansh Kumari & Ors; 2010 (119) DRJ 56, High Court of Delhi, it was held as under:
"15. From the aforesaid in my opinion, there is no manner of doubt that the learned trial court rightly decided issue no.1 in favour of the respondents and against the appellants. Reliance placed in this regard by the learned trial court on the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act and the following observations of the Supreme Court in Anar Devi vs. Nathu Ram, 1994 (2) RCJ 103, conclusively clinches the issues: Section 116 of the Evidence Act applies and estops even a person already in possession as tenant under the landlord from denying the title of is subsequent landlord when once he acknowledges him as E 08/13/27/60 his landlord by attornment of conduct. Therefore, a Page no.20 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.EP no.01/12
tenant B.K.Nagpal & Anr. vs. Mohan Gupta E.No.28/12 of immovable property under landlord who becomes a tenant under another landlord by accepting him to be the owner who had derived title from the former landlord, cannot be permitted to deny the latter's title, even when he is sought to be evicted by the latter on a permitted ground."
24. Further, in the judgment titled as Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi reported as 157 (2009) DLT 450 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held:
"...It is settled preposition of law that in order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control act, the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord had been receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as the owner, howsoever imperfect his title over the premises may be. The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRC Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppels against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly..."
25. In an eviction petition, the court is only concerned to find out whether the petitioner is a landlord of the tenanted premises or not. It is beyond the domain of this court to adjudicate on the irrelevant issue raised by the respondent regarding the inadequacy of the sale consideration and the financial irregularities committed by the vendor or vendee. Moreover, the bonafide mentioned in Section 14 (1)(e) DRC Act, 1958 is in respect of requirement of the tenanted premises and not in respect of the transfer of its ownership. Hence, even if the transfer of the tenanted premises is for ulterior motives or Page no.21 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12for inadequate consideration, the tenant can not dispute the ownership rights of the transferee. Accordingly, the respondent is not within his rights to dispute the ownership of the suit property with the petitioner as this is not a title suit. In view of the above discussion, it is hereby concluded that the petitioner is a landlady of the tenanted premises and thus, within her rights and competent to institute the present eviction petition against the respondent. Accordingly, the second ingredient also stands satisfied.
26. In respect of the third ingredient, the petitioner has asserted that the tenanted premises is required by her for expansion of the school and boutique run by her daughters in the suit property. The respondent has opposed the said plea stating that the space available in the suit property with the petitioner and her daughters is sufficient for satisfying their needs. He has further contended that there is no pressing need for the petitioner to takeover the tenanted premises, which only constitutes onetenth of the suit property. It is contended that three previous unsuccessful eviction petition instituted by the previous owner of the tenanted premises namely M/s LTC Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., the directors of which are the family members of the petitioner coupled with improper and sham sale transaction of the suit property in favour of the petitioner raises grave and serious suspicion on the bonafide requirement of the petitioner.
27. In order to establish the said ingredient, the petitioner has examined herself as PW1 and her two twin daughters as PW2 Ms. Chhaya Smita & PW3 Ms. Chhavi Smita. PW1 has placed on record a site plan of the suit property Ex.PW1/30 showing the proposed use of the suit property including the tenanted premises Page no.22 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12after the vacation of the tenanted premises. She has testified that both her twin daughters, though adult, are financially dependent upon her and they are suffering from physical infirmities. Respondent, in the written statement, admitted that both the said twin daughters are dependent upon her parents including the petitioner. In his cross examination also, RW1/ respondent admitted that the said daughters are financially dependent upon the petitioner for running their business i.e school and boutique in the suit property. PW2 & PW3 have testified that they are running their respective businesses in the suit property. PW2 is running a boutique by the name and style of 'Mod Boutique" for more than a decade whereas PW3 Ms. Chhavi Smita is running a play school in the suit property by the name of 'Silver Oak' since year 2000. RW1 has admitted that the said females are running the said respective businesses. RW1 has testified that the said daughters do not have requisite qualification and experience for running their said businesses. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that on account of lack of qualification of the daughters of the petitioner, they are incapable of running or expanding their respective businesses. The said contention is preposterous and thus, unacceptable and untenable. A person cannot be eschewed from initiating a business or an entrepreneurship concern merely because he does not have the qualification or experience. It would amount to demotivating or discouraging a novice to enter into a business and accepting a defeat without even an endeavor. Had it been the perception of every individual, no one would have taken an initiative to enter into a business.
Page no.23 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/1228. Further, it is contended by the respondent that the petitioner has not placed on record any documents pertaining to the said boutique or school and the same are being run on a very small scale for which the space available to them in the suit property is sufficient. It is further contended that they have never expanded their boutique or school in past. Thus, they do not intend to use the tenanted premises as proposed by the petitioner. It is further contended that the present petition is merely a dilatory tactics of getting the tenanted premises vacated. The respondent has himself admitted that the daughters of the petitioner are running their respective businesses in the suit property with the help of the petitioner. Therefore, the non production of the documents related to the said businesses is of no consequence or benefit to the respondent. The arguments of the respondent regarding the said businesses being run at a small scale is a self goal as it buttresses and furthers the desire of the petitioner to expand their business. Everyone has a right to expand his business all the more when he can utilize the additional space owned by her/ him.
29. In Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. vs. Vimlabai Prabhulal & ors.(2005)8 SCC 252, it has been held in para 4 as follows: "...It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if, he requires the premises in question for his bonafide use for expansion of business, this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad therefore, it is not a genuine need. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advice him what he should do or what he should do or what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of business and the place of business."
Page no.24 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12Further, in Prativa Devi vs. T.V.Krishanan, 1996 SCC 353 it was held that 'landlord' is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should run business in the suit property.
30. Besides, as per respondent, he is running an advertisement business in the tenant premises. However, he has admitted that he does not have any electricity connection in it since year 1989. Further, in his cross examination, he has admitted that he does not have any employee in his proprietorship concern of advertisement business. It is unimaginable to run an advertisement business without any employee or electricity connection in the premises from which it is being run. Hence, it is apparent that the respondent is retaining the tenanted premises since year 1989 without utilizing the same. The court is conscious that the said fact is not relevant for adjudication of this petition. However, the conduct of the respondent to resist the eviction of the tenanted premises at any cost that too without gainfully using the same speaks volumes about the malafide and mischief of the respondent.
31. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has substantiated and established the third ingredient that she needs the tenanted premises for her bonafide requirement of expanding the businesses being run by her daughters in the suit property.
32. In respect of the fourth ingredient, the petitioner has claimed that she does not have other suitable commercial accommodation to expand the business of her daughters. The onus of rebutting the said claim lied on the respondent and he was Page no.25 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12required to lead positive evidence to counter the said claim. However, the respondent has failed to rebut the said claim. Further, RW1 has testified that the only other property available with the petitioner is bearing no. C118, Inderpuri, New Delhi and the said property is a residential property in which the petitioner is residing with her family. Hence, the petitioner has also duly proved the fourth requisite ingredient for eviction U/s 14 (1)(e) DRC Act, 1958. Accordingly, the petitioner has successfully proved all the four requisite ingredients of the said section.
33. CONCLUSION: In view of above discussion, the petitioner is entitled to recover the possession of the tenanted premises i.e a shop and a varandah on the ground floor of property bearing no.R33, Inderpuri, New Delhi, as shown in the site plan i.e Ex.PW1/8 attached with the petition. The eviction petition is allowed accordingly. However, in accordance with Section 14 (7) Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, the petitioner shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of this order.
34. Cost of the petition is quantified to be Rs.11,000/ and it is also awarded in favour of the petitioner and against respondents.
File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (Dheeraj Mor)
today i.e on 21.04.18 ACJ/CCJ/ARC:South West District
Digitally signed Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
DHEERAJ by MOR
DHEERAJ
MOR Date: 2018.04.23
15:18:13 +0530
Page no.26 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12
EP01/12
CNR No. DLSW030001772012
Mrs. Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
21.04.18
Present: Sh. Akil Rateeya, ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
Vide separate judgment of even date announced in the open court, the petitioner is entitled to recover the possession of the tenanted premises i.e a shop and a varandah on the ground floor of property bearing no.R33, Inderpuri, New Delhi, as shown in the site plan i.e Ex.PW1/8 attached with the petition. The eviction petition is allowed accordingly. However, in accordance with Section 14 (7) Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, the petitioner shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of this order.
Cost of the petition is quantified to be Rs.11,000/ and it is also awarded in favour of the petitioner and against respondents.
File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
(Dheeraj Mor) ACJ/CCJ/ARC:South West District Dwarka Courts: 21.04.18 Page no.27 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12Page no.28 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12Page no.29 of 26 Urmila Singh vs. M/s Ivory Printers & Anr.
EP no.01/12